Its A Dog Eat Dog World Out There....

When there's a vegan lion, or shark, I'll reexamine my position on consuming delicious bacon.

Maybe he should stop trying to portray himself as the quintessential American then? Cause last I checked Americans love their dogs and cats and spend over 50 billion dollars on them per year.

This conversation is silly.

I also fail to see where I said I was looking down on anyone.

You didn't, I inferred it so I could make a point. Sorry you got caught in the crossfire.

That's the thing... I think this is what people picture when they hear the story and freak out. Heck, I know that I was on the verge of tears when I first watched vacation. (From laughing, but also from sadness at this part.) But the reality was (from what I gather) was not this at all.

There totally is. "Run of the mill" animals live in a far away place that we never have to look at, and are always treated with complete kindness before painlessly becoming tasty food.

Seriously, though. The only difference is the value we assign them. "Run of the mill" animals and pets are both completely subject to our wishes. But I can't for the life of me imagine that the soul or personality of the pig that I ate for breakfast has any less value than someone's yellow lab. It's just a matter of luck. The lab's lucky to not be eaten, and I'm lucky that sausage is tasty.

US politics is a full barn of jokes and clowns.

Couldn't help myself...

This probably won't come as a surprise, But that's exactly what I was thinking of. There's nothing that can't be solved by quoting Futurama.

Best thing I've read on AH all day!

From now on, my new phrase for solving problems will be, "Okay, I'll go get some more bricks."

Best I've read was your testicle mistell.

may not be solved, but at least it's funny

Yes, we in the US assign values to different animals and that is part of the point I was making.

When you choose to raise a dog, cat or bird (among other 'typical' pets) we (the public) expect you to treat that animal with respect because in our current culture we project some of our own rights (clean water, decent living space, adequate medical care, attention, some measure of love) on our pets. This is reasonable because you've made a choice to undertake raising said animal and have entered into a social contract with your peers.

We do not extend these same rights to livestock precisely because they are livestock and are meant to be consumed at the end of their growth cycle. Of course people still tend to get pissed off when ranchers 'cross the line' (excessive cruelties) with that line being different for different people.

Romney treated his dog poorly and it upset alot of people who have family pets simply because he broke the social contract many of us uphold.

I still think it's pretty silly to attack Romney on this though. It seemed more like something he didn't think through rather than Romney intentionally wanting to harm his pet.

Shhh!

Hrrrmmm...Mumble...Mumble...

/trails off

----------------------------

Anyway, I know that when you adopt an animal in this state, whether through a local shelter, a rescue, or the ASPCA, you have to sign various forms before the adoption. With some rescues, they will send someone to your home to inspect it and interview you personally.

Believe it or not, animal cruelty is taken very seriously here.

The topic is silly, the conversation isn't. The point/objective that is being argued by one side is that Mitt Romney is the cruel/negative one and Obama isn't. It will be the primary theme of Obama's re-election bid, because he cannot point to a positive record. The subject of this particular version of it is DOGS.

I fail to see how one can measure and judge Mitt Romney by one condition (you shouldn't vote for Mitt Romney because of how he treats dogs) and then change that measurement/standard when it comes to Obama (you should vote for Obama, nevermind that he ate dogs).

It's the people cruelty that is a joke in TX. Honestly, I agree though. The animals do nothing to deserve it and more oft than not have no way to fight back.

People on the other hand have multiple authority figures and hotlines to get help when being abused or neglected.

Nausi, does one remember the whole Al Gore v George W. debate over George being a terrible waster of electricity and bad on the environment, when he himself used more electricity each month than the ranch did in an entire calendar year?

A certain Muse song comes to mind...

actually it is silly, and Obama does have a positive record, congress does not.

Eating an animal isn't cruelty...

If this specific topic actually convinces someone to change their mind about a candidate then they were probably looking for anything to justify the action in the first place.

"Why aren't you voting for Mitt Romney?"
"Did you hear what he did to a dog 30 years ago? Guys a monster."
"So his disregard of the very poor, his flip-flop nature on topics or his disconnect with the typical American had nothing to do with your decision?"
"Dogs."

Obama eating dog meat as a child doesn't equate to Mitt Romney putting a dog on top of a car on any level outside both situations involving a canine period. It's a stupid non-equivalent scenario so how can we compare them? My previous posts explain exactly why they don't line up.

The article was stupid when I saw it earlier, and even after two pages of discussion here; it's still stupid.

Hooray American politics.

I could go out and vote but what for? The latest crop of morons spewing from D.C isn't even worth the time/effort to go 1/2 block around the corner to my local polling place.

comparing unlike things to scew an argument

Anyone who has grown up in Hawaii has probably eaten dog... feel sorry for you guys who vacation in the islands, go to a Filipino party and think you're eating pork...

Both candidates fall victim to or are exonerated by the conditions of any measurable standard. If the standard is that oh Obama comes from a different culture we shouldn't judge him because he ate dog, then by that same standard you cannot judge Mitt Romney any differently. People did things like this 30 years ago, it wasn't an uncommon phenomenon within our culture at all.

If the standard is look at Mitt Romney he's so cruel to dogs, then by that same standard you need to also conclude that Obama is cruel to dogs because he ate dog meat from dogs that are killed, I bet he even preferred dog meat to other unconventional forms of sustenance on more than one occasion.

Either way you look at it, you cannot come to any other conclusion unless you are intentionally partisan and only favor one side over the other.

So you believe children have developed sufficient mental capacity to have their judgements questioned on the same level as an adult?



*Taking everything at face value: Facts may vary, not sure what "Child" means in Obama's case, maybe he was 17, maybe he was 3.

I was merely pointing to the level of idiocy that reigns in slanderous politics. It doesn't matter if the two are related, it doesn't even matter if the dog scenario being discussed is related; it is still based on warped facts and baseless logic. God forbid a politician win an election on his merit and policy.

No I meant that the houses were unrelated, your comment wasn't even true.

I don't see how either in the current case is really being skewed beyond what it is here, but continue to believe so if you wish.